A friend of mine recently alerted me that in Murrieta, California the textbooks romanticize Islam in ways that are so far from the truth, the only conclusion one can come to is that the manner in which these textbooks were written was specifically with the intention of indoctrination in mind. Another friend confirmed with me that the same is going on in San Diego. Then an Internet acquaintance sent me a link to an article from the New York Daily News "Sowing The Seeds of Hatred" that reminded us that this is nothing new, and that the Islamic jihad is alive and well in Muslim schools right here in America.

The Department of Education and school boards across America have been penetrated for the purpose of encouraging, subliminally at first, submission to shariah in textbooks and pedagogy. The object is to control and soften the history of Islam and how it is taught to American students. Middle East Studies programs at several leading U.S. universities have received $20 million apiece from a prominent Saudi prince and enabler of the Brotherhood, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, with predictable results regarding their curriculum.

What is basically going on is textbooks used around America are teaching children lies about Islam in an attempt to soften America students so as to more easily accept the growing silent assault on America by Islam, as Islamic school's textbooks contain passages that are blatantly anti-Semitic, condemns Jews as a people, and repeats old replacement theology, pagan and gnostic canards about the Jews wanting to kill Christ and faking their Holy Scriptures to mock God.

Islamism is teaching their people through Islamic texts that "the Jews" killed their own prophets and betrayed the Prophet Muhammad through their inherent deceitfulness. In the New York Daily News article, these Islamic textbooks were found in private Muslim schools, and the textbooks are filled with inaccuracies, hate-filled condemnations of Jews and Christians, and of course continuous declarations of Islam's supremacy over the entire non-Muslim world. This teaching of racial and religious superiority, by the way, is the same doctrine used by totalitarian dictators of the past over and over, and includes specifically Adolf Hitler (does Hitler's Youth come to mind?).

The textbooks in Muslim schools, even here in America, which are widely cited by Islamic educators, are geared towards building a rationale for hatred that, in the end, can lead to a new holocaust, and the eventual domination of Islam over the world. And they are trying to do it in a manner similar to liberal methods - propagandized indoctrination of the youth.

The results of their efforts? Things like Iraq War Veterans being heckled on college campuses, American Universities being willing to invite controversial Muslim political and religious leaders to speak on their campuses to further their Islamist propaganda, emboldening our enemy both overseas and domestically, and guiding the sheeple to be more accepting of anti-Israel and pro-Islamic policies put forth by the Left both by the politicians and the judiciary.

Wisconsin State Senator Jon Erpenbach is one of those Democrats that decided to skip town rather than stick around and vote in the Senate chambers as expected by the voters. He, with his fellow cowardly Democrats, is hiding out in Chicago so as to create a situation where a quorum is not in session, and the budget reform bill backed by Governor Scott Walker does not proceed to a vote. The bill recently passed the State Assembly overwhelmingly, amidst screams by leftists in the chambers of "Shame."

Megan Kelly recently had the opportunity to interview Erpenbach, and when she asked him if he could stick around to continue the conversation after the break, Erpenbach said he didn’t have time to stay on the line and would have to go.

He must have a busy schedule doing nothing for his Wisconsin constituents while he holds out in Illinois.

Not too long ago, by the way, Erpenbach had plenty of time to stick around and continue the conversation when he was on the phone with liberal-minded Common Cause Wisconsin Forum (a leftist group that has people like raging self-proclaimed communist Van Jones speak at their events).

When asked about a voter ID vote, Erpenbach said that the GOP agenda amounts to a “takeover” of the political process in Wisconsin.

Never mind the fact that as Erpenbach refuses to do the work of the people, he stands in support of the unions. It turns out that his biggest donors are in fact the unions.

The top industries donating to Erpenbach during his 2008 campaign was:

Total included in the report is $39,678, meaning approximately HALF of his campaign funds came from these industries.

One wonders, then, who is really the entity that has "taken over" the political process in Wisconsin?

In truth, it seems that the GOP is not conducting a takeover of the political process in Wisconsin, but is in fact trying to stop an existing takeover by the powerful unions while there is still time to turn things around.

Jon Erpenbach, and his fellow Wisconsin Democrats, would never admit to this, because the union money they receive is much more important to them than the will of the voters.

Sunday, February 27, 2011

"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government." --George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

Duke Snider was an eight-time All-Star, as well as a member of the Dodgers baseball team in Brooklyn and Los Angeles. He was a member of Brooklyn's only World Series winner, as well as being a part of six National League championships.

The centerfielder's lifetime 407 home runs, 389 of them with the Dodgers, remains the most home runs by any member of the Dodgers organization in history. His lifetime batting average was .295.

Iraqi immigrant Faleh Hassan Almaleki has been convicted of an honor killing, where he ran over his own daughter in a suburban Phoenix parking lot for "bringing the family dishonor by becoming too Westernized."

The defense called no witnesses. They argued for a lesser charge, saying Almaleki made a split-second decision that he should be held accountable for but that he did not intend to kill anyone.

To avoid arrest, Almaleki fled to Mexico and then London, where he was detained and then returned to the U.S.

Mayor Villaraigosa of Los Angeles is a hard left liberal that believes in open borders, gun control, and government entitlements to all. He believes he is a man of the people, or at least he's one with the "peasants" until he reminds himself that he thinks he's a political elitist that looks down his nose at the dangerous hordes that reside somewhere outside his residential grounds.

To protect himself against the little people, especially after quivering for fear over the thought that some potential Los Angeles version of Jared Loughner may be out there, Villaraigosa has come to the conclusion that he needs a six-foot security wall erected around his official mayoral residence in Windsor Square.

This is the same man that took firearms from law abiding citizens by not allowing concealed or open carry (essentially removing our rights to keep and bear arms).

He says he needs a security wall to keep himself and his family safe, since the wealthy neighborhood in Los Angeles is so dangerous, and all. Nevermind that he already has 24 hour ARMED security system in place.

Funny thing is, this is the same guy that opposes a wall being erected at the border to keep the illegal aliens out of the country. So, no wall for the rest of us, but he wants a wall for HIS house.

Upcoming Episodes

This is no longer a matter of disagreement. This is no longer a bunch of politicians disagreeing on a few issues. This has become a war of ideologies, and the very fate of America hangs in the balance. Conservative News and Commentary

Let's set something straight right now. What is going on in Wisconsin with Governor Scott Walker, the legislature, Democrats running away to avoid a vote, the unions, and collective bargaining, at its roots, has nothing to do with busting government sector unions, or dropping the salary of teachers. In fact, salary is not even a part of the argument if you were to look at the proposed budget. What is going on is simply the state government officials attempting to balance the budget, and a part of that proposal is to limit collective bargaining allowances for public sector employees on everything except salary. The ability to negotiate salary would be unaffected. In addition to the limitations, the public employees would be asked to contribute more of their own money to their pension and health care benefits, an amount that would still be far less than what their private counterparts have to contribute, on average.

Like usual it is you that proves that you know absolutely nothing about what you say. You love to assume. My wife was a private school teacher for many years. Her sister works in the public sector as a teacher. My cousin in Texas teaches at the public schools, and I have a good friend here in California who is the administrator of one of the larger private high schools in Orange County. By in large the public school teachers make more money, but that is not always the case. For the most part the public school teachers have better health insurance packages, and in every case I know of have a better pension plan. Yet, the private schools put out students that are more advanced than public school students, and they do it on a third of the budget. But the premise of your question is not really the point. It does not matter who makes more, or less, or whatever. The fact is the teachers in the public sector, such as in Wisconsin, are making more and have better benefits packages than the average taxpayer as the taxpayers reach a point of not being able to afford it anymore. In short, there is no money. So the real issue here is, do the teachers accept limitations on collective bargaining (on all aspects of their contracts except salary - that's your other show of idiocy, pay is not affected in what's going on in Wisconsin), or do teachers end up getting laid off? The teachers believe they can stave off both. With what money? Liberalism has broken these states. Entitlement programs and millionaire pensions for state employees have busted the treasury. There is no more money. They have run out of everybody else's money and now these people are crying - just like the idiot protesters in Greece.

6:28 AM

-------

This upheaval in Wisconsin is not about the children, it is about power, money, and the relationship between the Democrats and the Unions that basically amounts to the public sector labor unions being a money laundering scheme for the Democrats. Could this result in busting the unions, and seriously wounding the Democrat Party? Absolutely. And stopping that madness is a good thing, since the liberal agenda is largely propagated through the school system, union rhetoric, and the incredible propaganda machine the Democrats fuel largely with funding from the unions. But in the end, it is really just all about trying to balance the budget in Wisconsin, and a part of that attempt is to draw back spending to a reasonable level.

Keep in mind that as the Muslim nations experience strife, the liberal left has been claiming that the people in those countries are fighting for democracy. Democracy is a dangerous thing. It is a transitional system that ultimately leads to an oligarchy.

"[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few." --John Adams, An Essay on Man's Lust for Power, 1763

February 26 is World Pistachio Day. A young crop in the United States, worldwide the pistachio has been enjoyed for thousands of years. Pistachios are even referenced in the Bible.

Pistachios in the United States were first harvested in the 1930s. Prior to California's entrance into planting pistachios, the green nut was primarily imported from Iran, and then dyed red to cover the imperfections in their shells.

Pistachios are nutritious, providing cardiovascular and weight management support, partly because in-shell nuts have been shown to help us eat less.

I was eating pistachios when I chose the name for this site. The name Political Pistachio comes from the fact that pistachios primarily come out of the Middle East, China, and the United States. . . the same places the nuttiest politics comes out of - which means that worldwide politics are really nothing more than political pistachios.

Personally, I lean towards California pistachios, and I am eating some right now.

Every time a fiscal conservative, someone with their head screwed on straight and living in reality, even so much as tries to cut back even the rate of growth at which money is given to government programs, liberals, those lacking even two active brain cells to rub together while simultaneously living in a fantasy world, rush to the microphone screeching about how much said conservative hates those which this money would go towards helping. Again, this is just when the rate of growth is threatened. When actual cuts are proposed then it is whoa Nelly! The conservative proposing an actual cut then becomes the second coming of Hitler himself. Yes, even though Hitler was a socialist liberal, I know. Do not try and convince a liberal of this however. They are simply just too brain-dead to understand it.

So the question I have to ask is this, where are the howls of seething hate from those on the left painting Obama as a fascist, Nazi-like being, seething with hate now that his 2012 fiscal year budget proposal is out? Because within that budget there is a lot of cutting going on despite the overall budget was, as former President Ronald Reagan once quipped of the deficit, big enough to take care of itself.

Let’s look at what President Obama wants to cut shall we?

Federal employee retirement and disability payments are slated to be cut by $4.25 billion. This is the difference from the $127.066 billion set aside for this line item in 2011 to the $122.816 billion earmarked in 2012. Why does President Obama hate retired federal employees so much? Doesn’t he care about the families they must feed?

Health research and training is set to get knocked back $113 million from fiscal year 2011. Huh? Doesn’t President Obama care about healing sick people?And talking about sick people who also happen to be poor, President Obama is proposing to radically cut $14 billion from Health care services handled under Welfare. Oh President Obama! When did you turn so anti-poor!

President Obama’s hate indeed runs deep with his 2012 budget. Not only is he looking to take his furry out on the poor, but our children are in the crosshairs too! Like the true hate monger that he is, the President has slashed the federal budget for elementary, secondary and vocational education by $28.282 billion. That is over 36%! Oh sure he is giving spending on higher education a boost of $21.5 billion, but how will our children ever be able to get into college without the investment in their basic educational needs by the all caring federal government during their formative years?

The downtrodden do not escape further hate directed at them from President Obama either! Unemployment compensation is cut by nearly $38.5 billion. Housing assistance programs are gutted of nearly $8.5 billion. And further, “income security” programs are disemboweled of almost $18 billion!

President Obama also apparently wants our streets to be taken over by gangs and thugs! His budget calls for nearly a billion less dollars for police services, nearly $1.5 billion less to fund our courts and just about $1.7 billion for assistance to our criminal justice system.

Does President Obama hate farmers? Oh, you bet he does! His budget for the 2012 fiscal year cuts farm income stabilization programs by $6.117 billion. That is over 30%.

How about dirty air and water? President Obama is for both of those too apparently. Because he plans to cut almost three quarters of a billion dollars (6.6%) from pollution abatement programs.

How about housing development? Oh my God! President Obama is cutting funds to these programs by 96% (just over $34 billion).

Now, if President Obama were, let's say, President George W. Bush, and it was the former President who was proposing these sorts of things, you would be hearing an unending parade of complaints from sun up to sun down calling the ex-president every name that you can think of. But not the messiah. Oh no. Not the chosen one; not President Obama. There is nary a peep from liberals about these proposed cuts by one of their own.

And you know what? I agree with these cuts! At least as a starting point anyway. We need a lot more though.

But what I do not agree with is President Obama still planning on spending about $1.5 trillion to more than we are likely to bring in this year in revenues despite all these reductions. Like I said last week, President Obama is unserious about handling our deficit. And while he is cutting some programs, our budget remains well too fat, dumb and happy.

Source for FY 2012 budget data: usgovernmentspending.com=====================================J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author from Pittsburgh, PA who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for Examiner.com. He is also the owner of The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts The Right Things. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at Liberty Reborn.

Is the glass half full? Or half empty? I believe the glass is not big enough for all of the wonderful things America would like to put into it. The Left blames America for the glass having something in it in the first place.

An acquaintance of mine, who has a Ph.D. in sociology, once explained to me that the United States is indeed an empire, and her imperialism is apparent by the fact that American cheesburgers can be found in just about all corners around the world. Cheeseburgers, by the way, that the subjected citizens of the world buy willfully, and eat gladly.

She took exception to my comment about America's greatness. Like most folks on the Left, my sociology friend seems to think that America's ability to prosper in a world with a history of violent discontent somehow makes America guilty of causing all of that discontent.

My oldest dog is nearly twelve years old. He's hard of hearing, can't see too well, and gets confused real easy. Should it be suggested that because I have provided him with a comfortable life complete with meals and a warm doggy bed that it is my fault he's blind in his old age? Perhaps, the liberal mindset may suggest, if he'd been left to the wild he'd see clearly well into his thirteenth birthday.

America is blamed for taking the land from the Indians, but if America had never emerged here in the New World would we still be living in teepees and hunting buffalo? While Columbus may have infected the Native Americans with small pox, it seems never to be mentioned that the Indians also infected the explorers with disease. When Columbus returned to the Old World, his crew took back with them syphilis, which spread through Europe like wildfire. Though our colonizing ancestors are blamed for the murder of millions of Indians, how many millions of people have died as a result of the natives in America introducing us to tobacco? If the United States had never gotten off the ground, would America then be an extension of Mexico, complete with drug cartels, corrupt leaders, and a populace itching to illegally cross the border into Canada?

We didn't ask to be a superpower. We became a superpower simply because we did everything right, with a handful of hiccups along the way. Sure, ultimately power is transient, but for the time being, like it or not, America is the example of exceptionalism the world over. We are the shining city on the hill, and everyone wants to be us. . . as they mutter under their breath how much they despise us at the same time (while picking pieces of cheeseburger out of their teeth).

The United States is involved in every major happening that emerges on this great big blue marble we call a planet. English is spoken just about everywhere because of us, Europe doesn't speak German and Italian because of us, and China is not just a farming province for the vast Japanese Empire thanks to us. America is the pre-eminent power of the age, not because we took that role by force, but because being great simply left us that role as a consequence. But if we are as imperialistic as the Left would like to suggest, wouldn't we have conquered Iraq, and then formed settlements in the sand, complete with convenience stores and burger joints? If we are as imperialistic and as warlike as the liberal loons would like to suggest, wouldn't we have invaded Canada by now?

Thanks to the belief that we are somehow an aggressor with imperialistic intentions, the guilt of the American Left automatically searches for an "exit strategy" every time we go into battle. "Exit Strategy" is a proclamation of the weak, and weakness can indeed be a provocation of your enemy. The correct answer should always be that the only acceptable exit strategy is victory. No less should be tolerated.

American liberals have decided that America is force feeding the world lemons, shoving the sour citrus of American policies down the throats of the poor, unsuspecting world.

Sure, we may have what seems to be lemons to some, but America's greatness has seen fit to mix the sour lemon juice with a little sweet sugar, so that the world can have some lemonade to go along with that American cheeseburger.

Upcoming Episodes

Log in for the weekly Blog Talk Radio summit, as Political Pistachio's Doug Gibbs and JASmius of Hard Starboard Radio hold forth on politics, current events, and live internet radio happenings you won't witness anywhere else.

With a new House of Representatives, it makes sense to assess the legacy of the last Speaker. It is hard to tell these days, but there are three branches of government. It seems the White House is on autopilot as it snubs its nose at courts that tell it "no" and send bills to Congress that are read after they are passed. When you look at the US Constitution, spending and taxation starts in the Congress. The US House of Representatives under Nancy Pelosi has pushed more spending than any other Speaker of the House in history. In fact, she has overseen more spending than all the Speakers of the House combined. So much for the promise of "no new deficit spending" that the American people have clearly grown tired of. Under Pelosi's leadership, the United States has added nearly $5 trillion to the national debt in only her first two terms. When you think that it took almost 200 years to get a debt of $1 trillion, these most recent numbers are all the more shocking.

When California Democrat Nancy Pelosi assumed the position as the first female Speaker of the US House of Representatives, she indicated that the American people could expect a new era in the way the nation would be governed. Many in the media made cute references about the need to have a “lady of the house” in charge of things. We all know about a “woman’s ability” to do so much more with less. These types of remarks largely came from women, because if men said such they would be dismissed or attacked as condescending. Regardless of how you characterize them, they have proven to be wrong…very wrong. It is business as usual, at a pace we have never seen in history.

Pelosi promised that she would "provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt. Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending." This is similar language to Barack Obama, who promised to be the most transparent president in US history while using his first Executive Order to hide the documents about his academic and personal life from public scrutiny. Pelosi has been blatantly dishonest about her frugality and has hit the accelerator to move us to complete debtor nation status.

In less than four years as the Speaker of the House, the total national deficit has exploded to approximately $5 trillion. This has translated to a record $13.67 trillion in national IOUs and the rest of the world expressing anxiety at the prospect of buying more of our debt. Pelosi and her President in the White House, Barack Obama, must be two of the loneliest people in America as we enter the midterm elections. The most conservative (in terms of their estimates, not ideology) pundits predict that the GOP will pick up 55 seats in the US House and 8 in the Senate, with the former putting this Speaker in minority status and back on the bench. Some Democrats running for reelection are actually running ads opposing Pelosi and Obama. What should not be a surprise is that members of the GOP are also responding with very sharp criticism of their own. Congressman Kevin Brady, the leading House Republican on the Joint Economic Committee, is quoted as stating "Congratulations, Madame Speaker, on saddling more debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren than any other speaker in America's history… And there's more for the record books. The last two years have seen the largest deficits in America's history. The question is -- when will it stop?"

That is the question the American people are asking and will be asking the new Congress that began in January 2011. Furthermore, they expect the new GOP run House to be a very different Congress than the one we see today in Washington, DC. The GOP is talking a very big talk these days, but it is on probation, at best, with the voters. Many Republicans in the House, including Brady, are guilty of voting for President Bush’s TARP, which has been as criticized by conservatives as any of Obama’s spending. That type of spending will not be tolerated in the future.

The state of affairs before Obama and Pelosi were, after all, bad enough. For example, in 2007 the federal government was running an annual deficit of $160.8 billion. But in fiscal year 2009 alone, the federal deficit exploded to an incredible $1.29 trillion. Republicans have our attention and they will likely be well rewarded due to the punishment the Democrats are poised to receive. But the GOP better make sure it does the right thing or its celebration will be short lived, indeed.

Friday, February 25, 2011

Unemployment is high, economy is failing, Middle East is on fire, protesters in Wisconsin yelling "shame" in the State House, food prices on the rise, oil prices on the rise, courts hold Obama in contempt over Gulf of Mexico Moratorium, Obamacare has been deemed unconstitutional, Hezbollah is rubbing elbows with the Mexican Drug Cartels, members of the American Media are being attacked overseas, homosexuals being pushed on the citizens as "role models", green technology tanks as the lie of man-made global warming is further exposed, Mexican military is crossing the border into America, Iran is poised to attack Israel and take advantage of turmoil in other Muslim nations, Muslim nations are becoming defiant, Democrat Propaganda includes making up fake people, Activist have attacked John Boehner's house, WMDs entering the U.S. at the border, government spending is out of control, Czars and federal agencies unconstitutionally legislating, the security of this nation is being ignored, and a government shutdown looms on the horizon. . . and the president decided to get together with all his friends last night to relax and have a good time AT THE TAXPAYERS EXPENSE!

I don't watch Glenn Beck, not because I don't like him, but simply because he is on while I am at work, or sleeping. My wife uses the DVR. So, when news about what he says gets to me, it is usually because somebody told me about it. Nonetheless, from what I understand, he is a very talented conservative talker.

Months back he made a "shoot in the head" comment, but from what I understand, it was taken out of context by liberals. In the comment, he was illustrating a point speaking from the point of view of the opposition, from what I have been told.

So be it.

However, Glenn Beck's latest scandal is not just a matter of being taken out of context. Apparently, he made a bad decision, and made a comparison that was not received too well by the Jewish Community.

Beck has since apologized for the comment, which compared Reform rabbis to radical Islam.

“There are the Orthodox rabbis and there are the Reform rabbis,” Beck said. “Reformed [sic] rabbis are generally political in nature. It’s almost like radicalized Islam in a way where it is just — radicalized Islam is less about religion than it is about politics.”

In his apology, Beck indicated that he did not mean that Reform Judaism and radical Islam were identical, just that Orthodox rabbis, like Islam, places politics before religion.

Beck has also been accused of comparing liberals to Hitler and the Nazis (well, they are both socialists. . . ), and also for implying George Soros was a Nazi collaborator (wasn't he?).

By now, it is well known that 14 Wisconsin State Senators have fled their state to avoid a vote on Governor Scott Walker’s proposal close a $3.6 billion budget gap by requiring that state employees contribute to their own pension and health care benefits. This, despite a call of the house compelling the faithless lawmakers to return to Madison.

Without 20 members present, the Senate cannot take up any budgetary items. Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson called the move “gutless.” He may well have also called it lawless.

The mayhem has also spilled over into Indiana, where Democrats pulled a similar stunt rather than allow a vote on legislation that gives state employees the option of whether or not to pay union dues.

Such is the sorry state of American democracy today, where if a majority cannot be won at the ballot box, lawmakers instead boycott the entire process.

Sen. Spencer Coggs (D-Milwaukee), who fled to Illinois from Wisconsin, has called himself a “refugee”. Except, of course, refugees are actually forced to leave their homes, usually by force or for some act of nature. Coggs, on the other hand, simply left because he wasn’t going to get his way.

That’s not the way a representative system of government based on the rule of law is supposed to operate. It’s the way a schoolyard game operates.

For his part, Governor Walker is warning lawmakers that if they do not return to complete work on the budget, he will be forced to begin issuing layoffs of state employees, starting with 1,500 and ultimately culminating in 10,000 to 12,000 if his budget proposals are not adopted this year.

That is the tradeoff: Either the public sector unions’ excessive benefits packages are reformed and employees are required to pay into, or those employees will simply begin losing their jobs altogether.

Similar tradeoffs are occurring nationally with the new health care law taking effect. Many businesses are reluctant to begin expansion with the employer mandate to provide health insurance to employees.

With unemployment remaining unacceptably high, do the American people really want to risk not finding jobs because hiring became too expensive? Will they risk losing their jobs because they thought they were entitled to greater benefits packages?

That’s the situation Wisconsin and states across the country are faced with as much as $3 trillion in unfunded liabilities to pension and health care retirement systems. So overburdened are these systems, that members of Congress now openly speak of enacting new federal laws that would allow states to declare bankruptcy.

And rather than fix those systems, state lawmakers from Wisconsin and Indiana are hiding under rocks. The only proposals they appear to support are higher taxes, despite the persistently high unemployment. They appear intent on remaining delinquent unless their demands are met.

That is not leadership. It is coercion. Rather than debate their proposals on the merits in a democratic forum, they are engaged in brinksmanship.

Fortunately, there may be a way to for Senate Republicans to proceed in Wisconsin, as ALG’s Wilson noted. “The Wisconsin Senate, of course, could move forward with a quorum of 17 to pursue legislation minus any budget items,” he said.

“They should put a straight right-to-work law on the table, which would give all workers in the state the option of whether they want to join a union or not. They could move it to the floor and have it on the calendar, and then adjourn for a day. The delinquent 14 Senate Democrats would probably come scurrying back rather quickly to try to defeat the measure,” Wilson explained.

In other words, Senate Republicans in Wisconsin need to put proposals unacceptable to their Democrat colleagues forward. “Ultimately, these 14 faithless senators need to get back to work on the budget. If Senate Republicans move aggressively, the ‘Delinquent 14’ can be made to meet their obligations.”

Let us hope Wisconsin Republicans are willing to escalate their efforts on behalf of taxpayers, for we are all Wisconsinites now. We are counting on them to prevail, to provide an example of how, as a nation, we can begin to get our fiscal house back into order.

Robert Romano is the Senior Editor of Americans for Limited Government.

Thursday, February 24, 2011

"The people can never willfully betray their own interests: But they may possibly be betrayed by the representatives of the people; and the danger will be evidently greater where the whole legislative trust is lodged in the hands of one body of men, than where the concurrence of separate and dissimilar bodies is required in every public act." --James Madison, Federalist No. 63, 1788

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Key Terms:

Capital Crime: One for the punishment of which death is inflicted, which punishment is called capital punishment.

Double Jeopardy: The act of putting a person through a second trial for an offense for which he or she has already been prosecuted or convicted.

Due Process: The essential elements of due process of law are notice, an opportunity to be heard, the right to defend in an orderly proceed, and an impartial judge. It is founded upon the basic principle that every man shall have his day in court, and the benefit of the general law which proceeds only upon notice and which hears and considers before judgement is rendered. In short, due process means fundamental fairness and substantial justice.

Grand Jury: A group of citizens convened in a criminal case to consider the prosecutor's evidence and determine whether probable cause exists to prosecute a suspect for a felony. At common law, a group of persons consisting of not less than twelve nor more than twenty-four who listen to evidence and determine whether or not they should charge the accused with the commission of a crime by returning an indictment. The number of members on a grand jury varies in different states.

Infamous Crime: A crime which works infamy in the person who commits it. Infamous crimes tend to be classified as treason, felonies (offenses of graver character than misdemeanors, especially those commonly punished in the U.S. by imprisonment for more than a year - Felonies include Capital Crimes as well), and any crime involving the element of deceit.

Miranda Rights: Your "Miranda Rights" are named after the U.S. Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966). Miranda Rights are a warning given advising the accused of their right to remain silent, their right to an attorney, and the right to an appointed attorney if they are unable to afford counsel - prior to conducting a custodial interrogation. From the Fifth Amendment: ". . .nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Miranda Rights exist to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, and to make the individual in custody aware not only of the privilege, but also of the consequences of forgoing it. The judicial opinion from The Miranda v. Arizona case also indicated that in order to protect the person's life, liberty or property with the due process of law, the individual must have the right to an attorney. With a lawyer present the likelihood that the police will practice coercion is reduced, and if coercion is nevertheless exercised the lawyer can testify to it in court. The presence of a lawyer can also help to guarantee that the accused gives a fully accurate statement to the police and that the statement is rightly reported by the prosecution at trial.

----------------------------------

The Fifth Amendment attests to the Founding Father's understanding that his is a nation of property owners. As a republic of property owners, when in jeopardy of legal trouble, our rights and properties must be safeguarded.

The Fifth Amendment brings to the U.S. Constitution Thomas Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Following the tradition of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison believed that men could be free only if their lives, liberty, and property were protected by the rule of law.

Having a sense of independence, individuals must be protected, then, from the tyrannical trappings of a governmental system that may try to use the judiciary against them (as the King of England had done often). The protective mechanism, or "the rule of law," would be the U.S. Constitution and clauses like the Fifth Amendment which were designed to provide protection to the populace from unfair legal practices.

The words of the Founders continues to resonate today as the majority of the American people seem to firmly agree with the Founders’ insistence that no one should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. We can take satisfaction that most of our fellow citizens in our republic still hold these truths to be self-evident.

First, in Wisconsin, the Democrats got on a bus and fled to Illinois, refusing to return under the orders of the governor, to vote on a bill that would eliminate collective bargaining for everything except salary for public employees. Now, Democrat Party legislators in Indiana are hiding like a bunch of cowards from the Indiana House chamber, blocking the Republican majority from conducting business while pro-union protesters fill the adjourning hallways angry over a contentious labor bill.

A mere three, of the total of 40, House Democrats were in the chamber when Republican Speaker Brian Bosma tried to begin Tuesday's session. The Democrats that were present left the House short, leaving it with too few members for a quorum.

The Democrats are absent in an attempt to force legislation to miss a Tuesday procedural deadline for consideration. The bill would prohibit union representation fees from being a condition of employment.

CAIR’s executive director Nezar Hamze tried to score a couple of points off of West, and instead, West ends up schooling Hamze on history, both ancient and recent, noting pointedly that Hamze’s professions of peace certainly seem to be undermined by some of his brethren in the faith:

Move On dot Org is one of the leftists groups behind the protest in Wisconsin. Similar protests are also emerging in Indiana and Ohio, under the tutelage of leftist organizations. They are now calling for protests in all 50 states. Communists like Van Jones are also being named by Move One dot Org as being involved.

The First Sentence in Move On's Call to Action is as follows: Calling all students, teachers, union members, workers, patriots, public servants, unemployed folks, progressives, and people of conscience

Students: When asked why they were at the protests in Wisconsin, the students usually didn't know. They were there because their leftists teachers told them to.

Teachers: So much for the kids being number one. Instead of teaching, they are whining in the streets because they might have to pay a little more for benefits. In the private industry they would never survive.

Union Members: Deceived into believing that the union is out for their interest.

Workers: Workers is a communist term. This is a nation of employees, entrepreneurs, and patriots.

Patriots: Patriots voted Walker and the Republicans into office.

Public Servants: Who expect taxpayers that don't get the golden deal the public employees get to pony up more money for their greedy demands.

Unemployed Folks: Rather than look for work? Oh, that's right, they have 99 weeks of unemployment coming to them. Government paying people not to work.

Progressives: Also known as liberals, socialists, communists...

People of Conscience: If they had a conscience they'd realize we don't have the money to pay for the labor union's demands anymore.

As for the Wisconsin Democrats; by bailing out of the state they show who is more important to them: The unions (because that is where they get their money from), not the voters.

Fact is, if this Wisconsin idea of busting the unions goes nationwide, and the unions do get busted up, it could spell the end of the Democrat Party. Their funding and power base would be gone.

I remember Obama saying something about "living within our means." If he was serious he would be supporting Scott Walker in Wisconsin.

To pull ourselves out of this critical moment in history we must cut spending, eliminate costly programs like public employee pensions, and reform the entitlement programs. Instead, our president is hostile to the private sector, which means he's hostile towards wealth creation and job creation.

"All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people. . . The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters. Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. . . Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable." -- Franklin Delano Roosevelt

The bodies of protesters shot to death by forces loyal to Muammar al-Qaddafi were left on the streets of a restive district in the Libyan capital Tuesday, an opposition activist and a resident said, while the longtime leader defiantly went on state TV to show he was still in charge.

President Obama recently released his request for the Defense budget for the 2012 fiscal year and unsurprisingly he’s cut the budget once again. Despite the increased need for security because of an extremely turbulent Middle East, Obama has steadily cut the budget from $686 billion in 2008 down to $680 billion in 2010, and now once again to $671 billion. The cuts include a precipitous $41.5 billion drop in crucial funding for overseas contingency operations. Obama clearly hasn’t given much thought to how he plans to handle the escalating revolutions in the Middle East, given that he’s shrinking funding for our soldiers overseas, funds that the troops will need in the case of an emergency situation.

Obama’s ignorant cuts in a crucial aspect of the Defense budget are hardly even the worst item on his agenda. Since March 2009 Obama has been angling to force veterans to use private insurance to pay for the injuries they’ve suffered in combat and other service related health problems. This is, of course, the same president who believes that the deadbeat loser without a job hanging out on welfare deserves to have government healthcare. But our veterans, the people who have given their sweat and blood and risked their lives for this country, don’t. Obama’s proposal, which was supposed to save $540 million or $.5 billion, centered around billing veterans’ private insurance companies for the treatment of their injuries effectively making it more expensive and difficult for veterans to purchase insurance. It could also make it more difficult for veterans to gain employment where employer-funded private insurance plans would have to cover the additional costs of treating military injuries.

The fact that Obama doesn’t realize that reducing funding for defense and trying to take away veterans’ benefits is unpatriotic, irresponsible, and reckless is unbelievable. But worst of all, reducing benefits from veterans while engaged in a war would likely be a financial and bureaucratic catastrophe. First of all, it would send a message to our troops that we are not supporting them if we ask that they risk life and limb on the front line while we are reducing our service to them if they are injured. But more importantly, cutting VA disability benefits while we are at war would be a grave mistake because it would stretch the already strained VA system to the breaking point to try and take care of the increasing number of soldiers disabled without increasing the cost of the program. In fact, the costs of veterans’ benefits are likely to increase up until about 2040, as more veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars claim benefits.

Furthermore, it’s not only the war that’s putting a strain on VA benefits. Past military policies, including the heavy use of asbestos, are having a serious effect on aging veterans. For example, the military’s institutional policy of using asbestos, before it was discovered it was linked to cancer, as cheap insulation has lead to large numbers of mesothelioma cases in veterans. And because it has a latency period of 20-50 years, and the mesothelioma symptoms are difficult to diagnose until the later stages of the disease (although the military stopped using asbestos in the 1970’s), the numbers of veterans with mesothelioma is expected to rise dramatically over the next 5-10 years. Even discounting that these veterans deserve our support and that the difficulty of diagnosing mesothelioma symptoms causes many cases to go untreated, it’s clear that the VA system can’t afford to take a cut in spending and still provide manageable service.

Of course, it’s not surprising to see Obama completely out of touch with reality, especially when it comes to the budget but it’s still shocking to see a president so clearly unaware of what America needs. Americans don’t want to see veterans’ benefits cut and America’s military neutralized so that taxpayers can pay for bum’s healthcare instead.

-------

Tim is a guest contributor to Political Pistachio. Timothy Elliot is a dedicated advocate of veterans' rights and a staunch supporter of our troops.

This case is a frightening example of what can happen when a photographer encounters ignorant bullies with badges. According to the complaint filed in Federal Court, Nancy Genovese, a mother of three, was driving home on County Road 31 past Gabreski Airport in Suffolk County. Gabreski Airport displays a decorative helicopter shell by the roadway to the public, which is visible to all who pass by.

Nancy Genovese stopped her car on the side of the road across the street from the airport in an area that is open and accessible to the public, and crossed over the road to the airport entryway that is also open and accessible to the public to take a picture of the helicopter display. While still in her car, she took a picture of the decorative helicopter shell with the intention of posting it on her personal “Support Our Troops” web page.

As Nancy Genovese was preparing to drive away, she was stopped and approached by Robert Iberger, a lieutenant with the Southampton Town Police. Lieutenant Iberger demanded to know why she was taking photographs. Nancy showed the lieutenant her camera, but Lieutenant Iberger grabbed her camera and handled it “without care”. In an attempt to prevent the lieutenant from damaging the camera, Nancy removed her memory card, which Lieutenant Iberger confiscated. To date, Nancy’s memory card still has not been returned to her.

Lieutenant Iberger demanded that Nancy remain where she is, and he refused to allow her to leave. At this time, Lieutenant Iberger notified the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office and the authorities at Gabreski Airport of Nancy’s presence outside the airport, and falsely and wrongfully informed them that she posed a terrorist threat. . .

. . . During the remainder of the six hours that Nancy Genovese was forcibly detained on the side of the road, she was taunted, verbally harangued, threatened, belittled, abused, humiliated and harassed by members of the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office. For example, Deputy Carlock repeatedly referred to Nancy as “a right winger” and “tea bagger”, and threatened that they were going to arrest her for terrorism to make an example of her to other “tea baggers” and “right wingers”.

...

Fair Use

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

However, if you still believe your copyright has been violated, we accept notifications of alleged copyright violations in accordance with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Note that if you materially misrepresent a claim of copyright infringement you will be liable for damages (including costsand attorney fees). We require the following information in order to respond to your request: Describe in detail the copyrighted work that you believe has been infringed upon (for example, “The copyrighted work is the code that appearson http://www.example.com/thecode.html) Identify the material that you claim is infringing the copyrighted work listed in #1. Include relevant URL’s that will allow us to identify the work. Your address, telephone number,and email address. Include the following statement “I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.” Include thefollowing statement “I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.” Sign the notification, type your full name, sign it electronicallyif submitted via email. Send the notification to politicalpistachio@yahoo.com. Please place in the subject line Political Pistachio Copyright Infringement.

You can Email me to bitch and complain if you so desire, as well. In the event that you are offended by my site please advise me of the offensive material by Email, and I will promptly print the Email, and then place it in my shredder to serve as kindling for my fireplace.